The core point was the regulations being written today. The current issue of the Economist has cover story on the adverse affects of regulatory excess in the US.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=94626&page=1#.TwYEVpis9zQ

“W A S H I N G T O N, Dec. 21
The Clinton administration has approved new regulations that are expected to cut air pollution from heavy-duty trucks and buses by more than 90 percent over the next decade.

Attacking one of the major sources of dirty air, the federal standards will require new large trucks and buses to meet stringent tailpipe emission limits and direct refiners to produce virtually sulfur-free diesel fuel.

The rules were announced today by the White House and the Environmental Protection Agency as part of a flurry of regulations being churned out in the last days of the Clinton administration and crafted to head off challenge by an incoming Bush administration.

I did not say that EPA rules have reduced refiners costs. Reducing costs for refiners is not the purpose of EPA regulation, in any case. We need an EPA to preserve a livable environment, not to do the R&D that lowers costs for industries.

I don’t think which tech is the future of auto engines matters to this story about one environmental rule. But if asked about my future auto tech favorite: I personally prefer an EV I can run off my roof. But my son is with you on direct injection, loves VWs GTI and agrees with you on the lower emissions.

But, replying to your comment to me, yeah, I am guilty of introducing my own thoughts on the cause for the EU interest based on the ECE regulations greenhouse gases of cars and results in them being much lower in ghgs than US cars.

I chopped a reference to the immediate pollution like acid rain and particulate matter that the Atlantic article points out. (I battle long windedness: our editor says “you don’t need to write a dissertation!”)

The new fuel contains 15 parts per million of sulfur, down from the old 500 parts per million, thanks to changes in the refining process.

First, the US is a net importer of gasoline, diesel and jet fuel. The US is a net exporter of natural gas and coal. Additionally, much of the natural gas produced in the US goes to plastics, hydrogen, and ammonia production. Much of which is also exported.

Second, while it’s true EPA regulations have forced refineries to reduce their emissions, and become more efficient with production rates from existing facilities, these regulations have not reduced costs. Instead, draconian EPA regulations have made the cost of building new refinery capacity prohibitive. So the only option left for refiners is to increase output from existing facilities.

The issue of US refiners delay in switching to ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel had very little to do with emissions. Instead, it had to do with the reliability of diesel engine fuel injectors. The older injectors relied on a small amount of sulfur in the fuel to provide lubrication. Until US engine manufacturers made ULS-compatible fuel injectors available, there was no market for ULS diesel fuel.

Lastly, if the author was up-to-date on automotive engine technology, she would understand that the future of automotive engines is not diesel. It’s highly-boosted, downsized, DI gasoline engines. These engines are as efficient as diesels, with lower costs and lower emissions.

Our Exports would not be up because the EU Regulations prevent High-sulfur diesel imports. So even though USA Regs were implemented before the EU, the result is the opportunity for US Distillers to export into the EU. EU Distillers now have to compete with US Distillers who’ve amortized the investments, and find the financing from EU banks to implement the changes for their domestic market only. The US advantage is likely to exist for some time.

The EPAs requirement for BAT acts as a Market force by introducing competition into a Market otherwise void of it. Requiring BAT kills off the weaker players, while creating new opportunities for new ideas and new companies to implement the requirements, while reducing health costs for all.
The EPAs requirement of BAT for Diesel created market(s) for Diesel cars in the USA, a domestic fuel market with more fuel efficient cars and trucks that directly resulted in excess distillation capacity and hence Diesel exports to the EU & World market.

This article states that it is “Climate Legislation” that the new rules are based on, but the original cited article states “Many governments, particularly in Europe, are requiring varieties with lower levels of sulfer(sic), a major air pollutant that causes respiratory problems and contributes to acid rain.”- The EU version of Clean Air acts and this is more in line of what I know to be the driver of the EU Fuel regulations.

Either Way the inference of the articles is regulations lead to better outcomes for us all. I’d like a few more statistics myself but the inference of this article is correct.

Take Care and have a great 2012